Rectification power and natural justice: denial of fair hearing and unsupported adverse remarks justified recall of the earlier order.

A tribunal may use its rectification power only to correct a mistake apparent from the record, not to exercise review jurisdiction in the strict sense, and mere drafting or pronouncement irregularities are not enough on their own to justify recall. However, where the hearing process is shown to have denied a party a fair opportunity to present its case, or where adverse remarks are made against counsel without giving an opportunity to respond, the resulting breach of natural justice can constitute an apparent error warranting recall. On that basis, the miscellaneous application succeeded, the earlier order was recalled, and the appeal was restored for further proceedings.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Tribunal could recall its earlier order under its limited power to rectify a mistake apparent from the record; (ii) Whether the earlier order suffered from an apparent error because the appellant and counsel were not afforded a fair opportunity of hearing, including before adverse observations were made.

Issue (i): Whether the Tribunal could recall its earlier order under its limited power to rectify a mistake apparent from the record.

Analysis: The Tribunal held that it had no power of review in the strict sense, but could amend an order only under the statutory rectification power for a mistake apparent from the record. It examined the file, the draft orders and the final order, and accepted that the final decision on the merits had remained the same. It also noted that the form of dictation and authorship of the written order did not, by itself, create a jurisdictional defect. The relevant procedural rule required the date of hearing and pronouncement to be recorded, and the Tribunal found the order to be generally consistent with that requirement, save for a wording error that was not by itself decisive.

Conclusion: The rectification power was not excluded, but no standalone error on the mere mode of drafting or pronouncement was sufficient to justify recall on that ground alone.

Issue (ii): Whether the earlier order suffered from an apparent error because the appellant and counsel were not afforded a fair opportunity of hearing, including before adverse observations were made.

Analysis: On the facts of the hearing day, the Tribunal accepted that extraordinary events had occurred in court and that the appellant did not receive a full and satisfactory opportunity to present the case. It treated this as a failure of the hearing process and therefore as an error apparent on the record. On the adverse remarks made against counsel, the Tribunal reiterated that such comments should ordinarily not be made without giving the affected counsel an opportunity to respond, and found that the impugned observations were made without such opportunity. In these circumstances, the principles of natural justice were held to have been compromised.

Conclusion: The order was vitiated by denial of fair hearing and by adverse observations made without opportunity to be heard.

Final Conclusion: The miscellaneous application succeeded, the earlier order was recalled, and the appeal was restored for further proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi: A final order may be recalled under the rectification power where an error apparent on the record is shown, including denial of a fair opportunity of hearing or adverse remarks made without giving the affected person an opportunity to respond.

---